Menu
▾
▴
Re: [avr-llvm-devel] Regression tests
|
From: Nicklas Bo J. <nbj...@gm...> - 2012-05-21 21:09:00
|
Is the following generated code correct:
LLVM:
define i8 @return8_arg(i8 %x) {
ret i8 %x
}
Generated:
return8_arg:
ret
Something similar in .c compiling with avr-gcc gives a few pushes, loads
and pops.
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 10:48 PM, Nicklas Bo Jensen <nbj...@gm...>wrote:
> When adding those targets I only have 10 unexpected failures:
>
> Clang :: CodeGen/address-space-compound-literal.c
> Clang :: CodeGen/address-space-field1.c
> Clang :: CodeGen/address-space.c
> Clang :: CodeGenCXX/mangle-address-space.cpp
> Clang :: PCH/types.c
> Clang :: Sema/address_spaces.c
> Clang :: SemaCXX/address-space-conversion.cpp
> Clang :: SemaCXX/address-space-newdelete.cpp
> Clang :: SemaCXX/address-space-references.cpp
> Clang :: SemaTemplate/address-spaces.cpp
>
> I will try to run each test separately and try to figure out why they are
> failing. I have also attached the test output.
>
> I'm also committing tests for and, or and xor in a minute. They are really
> simple and similar to the add and sub tests. Please review these :)
>
>
> On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 11:32 PM, Borja Ferrer <bor...@gm...>wrote:
>
>> Did you try adding the x86 and x64 targets with the avr one? It's
>> something related with an unsopported target.
>>
>> Good question, I think there's no need to do reg+imm for xor.
>>
>> Btw remember to add the SF mailing list so we can have a record ;)
>>
>>
>> 2012/5/14 Nicklas Bo Jensen <nbj...@gm...>
>>
>>> Sorry, that is the llvm+clang trunk gives me 13 unsupported tests, i.e.
>>> no failures versus the avr-llvm giving me 280 unexpected failures.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 9:08 PM, Nicklas Bo Jensen <nbj...@gm...>wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> BTW, the newest llvm and clang trunk only gives me 13 unexpected
>>>> failures compared to the the newest trunk with avr-llvm where i get 280
>>>> unexpected failures.
>>>>
>>>> Considering the regression tests for xor, does it make sense to test
>>>> reg+imm, as the avr assembler does not have xor for immediate?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 9:12 PM, Borja Ferrer <bor...@gm...>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I don't think so, but I configured llvm to support both x86 and x64,
>>>>> so maybe that could help, in fact I can't build clang if I don't add
>>>>> support for x86.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 2012/5/10 Nicklas Bo Jensen <nbj...@gm...>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But I only configured for avr... Did I do something wrong?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 5:32 PM, Borja Ferrer <bor...@gm...>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is what I'm getting:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Expected Passes : 9914
>>>>>>> Expected Failures : 66
>>>>>>> Unsupported Tests : 569
>>>>>>> Unexpected Failures: 11
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've seen in that file you attached that you're getting errors
>>>>>>> because of the target triple, errors like:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> error: unable to create target: 'No available targets are compatible with this triple, see -version for the available targets.'
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> error auto-selecting target for module 'No available targets are compatible with this triple, see -version for the available targets
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> so I guess that's the reason, so what is your target triple? do
>>>>>>> clang -v to get it, mine is i386-pc-linux-gnu
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2012/5/10 Borja Ferrer <bor...@gm...>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Interesting, I'll check it out tomorrow to see if I can find some
>>>>>>>> reason behind this, because we're getting very different results here.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2012/5/9 Nicklas Bo Jensen <nbj...@gm...>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sorry for my slow response.Got i working again now, thanks.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Building with optimization disabled and assertions turned on i get:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Avr llvm+clang:
>>>>>>>>> Expected Passes : 6978
>>>>>>>>> Expected Failures : 39
>>>>>>>>> Unsupported Tests : 3281
>>>>>>>>> Unexpected Failures: 279
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In the 279 unexpected failures for example 143 of them are
>>>>>>>>> test/CodeGen/Generic. I'm not really sure how these tests are supposed to
>>>>>>>>> work? None of them seems to be using FileCheck.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> However building for msp430 seems to be giving me similar results,
>>>>>>>>> indicating that it is not a avr-llvm specific problem. Please see the
>>>>>>>>> attached output "make check-all" from avr-llvm.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 11:30 PM, Borja Ferrer <
>>>>>>>>> bor...@gm...> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'm asking because last week you said that you were getting +200
>>>>>>>>>> fails, and since I'm getting 11 I wanted to know what's going on.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> faluco is me btw, I updated a patch today because I got a
>>>>>>>>>> conflict when updating my clang repo. These variables are defined in
>>>>>>>>>> DiagnosticSemaKinds.td so check that you have them, they come from the
>>>>>>>>>> flash.diff patch.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 2012/5/4 Nicklas Bo Jensen <nbj...@gm...>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The new tests should pass. I cannot check other tests now, I'm
>>>>>>>>>>> having some issues after applying the newest patches that came in today by
>>>>>>>>>>> faluco:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> /home/nicklas/install/avr-llvm/llvm/tools/clang/lib/Sema/SemaDecl.cpp:4374:38:
>>>>>>>>>>> error:
>>>>>>>>>>> no member named 'err_flash_variable_requires_const' in
>>>>>>>>>>> namespace
>>>>>>>>>>> 'clang::diag'
>>>>>>>>>>> Diag(NewVD->getLocation(),
>>>>>>>>>>> diag::err_flash_variable_requires_const);
>>>>>>>>>>> ~~~~~~^
>>>>>>>>>>> /home/nicklas/install/avr-llvm/llvm/tools/clang/lib/Sema/SemaDecl.cpp:4383:38:
>>>>>>>>>>> error:
>>>>>>>>>>> no member named 'err_flash_pointer_requires_const' in
>>>>>>>>>>> namespace
>>>>>>>>>>> 'clang::diag'
>>>>>>>>>>> Diag(NewVD->getLocation(),
>>>>>>>>>>> diag::err_flash_pointer_requires_const);
>>>>>>>>>>> ~~~~~~^
>>>>>>>>>>> /home/nicklas/install/avr-llvm/llvm/tools/clang/lib/Sema/SemaDecl.cpp:7208:25:
>>>>>>>>>>> error:
>>>>>>>>>>> no member named 'err_flash_pointer_requires_const' in
>>>>>>>>>>> namespace
>>>>>>>>>>> 'clang::diag'
>>>>>>>>>>> Diag(NameLoc, diag::err_flash_pointer_requires_const);
>>>>>>>>>>> ~~~~~~^
>>>>>>>>>>> Have i done something wrong?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>> Nicklas
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 8:50 PM, Borja Ferrer <
>>>>>>>>>>> bor...@gm...> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> How many tests failures are you getting now?
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm getting 11, 10 from clang due to address space stuff
>>>>>>>>>>>> (you'll need to patch clang to get those) and 1 from llvm.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2012/5/4 Nicklas Bo Jensen <nbj...@gm...>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ah, perfect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would actually guess that you need to run "make check-all"
>>>>>>>>>>>>> before being able to test new tests individually. Sorry :)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 8:17 PM, Borja Ferrer <
>>>>>>>>>>>>> bor...@gm...> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nevermind, got it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2012/5/4 Borja Ferrer <bor...@gm...>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One thing, i dont have llvm-lit in that dir, am I supposed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to build llvm with an addtional param or something in order to get it?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2012/5/4 Nicklas Bo Jensen <nbj...@gm...>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ok, I've committed now. To only run the AVR specific tests
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> run something like:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ./build/Debug+Asserts/bin/llvm-lit llvm/test/CodeGen/AVR/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 1:47 PM, Borja Ferrer <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bor...@gm...> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh a small one I've just noticed, leave only 1 newline
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> between tests not 2.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2012/5/4 Borja Ferrer <bor...@gm...>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ok they look great now, I don't have any other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> objections. Please commit this test to SVN, post your SF username here so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that Eric or John can give you commit permissions. Once it gets commited
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll check if I need to add any pattern specific tests to it, these tests
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are corner cases of some instructions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Before commiting it, remove the testcases dir with all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the files there, and create a new one called test/CodeGen/AVR, and place
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your file there, just to keep the same structure like in llvm's repo.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> About the rest of tests to do, from that list remove mul
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and division for now, mul isn't yet implemented and division can come
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> later. Sub tests should be very similar to add, then add binary ops (or,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and, xor). Add calling convention tests (argument passing through regs and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stack, return values for each value type, calls). Memory operations, etc...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are quite a few tests to add, but for now do the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sub and binary op tests and we'll discuss the others by then.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2012/5/4 Nicklas Bo Jensen <nbj...@gm...>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) Sure
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) Yes, I've followed the msp430 backend that does
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> include it. I've removed it now.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3) Again, I've moved the CHECK lines, but it differs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from backend to backend.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4) Done
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5) Done
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 6) Done
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will continue working other tests, which do we need?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Something like(and please add/comment):
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Sub
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -division(Only working for multiples of 2?)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -mult
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Return argument(In a few variants)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -xor
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -increment
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -branching?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any ideas?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nicklas
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 12:29 AM, Borja Ferrer <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bor...@gm...> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Obviously in the last line I meant adiw or subi/sbci
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pair, add for immediates doesn't exist for imms greater than 63
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2012/5/2 Borja Ferrer <bor...@gm...>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They look good, very nice :)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Some small details and nitpicks:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) I think it's not necessary to add the reg_reg_imm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> variant because you covered it with the other two tests.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) Do the tests work if you remove the target triple
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> line? I've seen other backends don't include it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3) Move the CHECK lines after the function prototype
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like other backends do.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4) In every CHECK line, can you remove the tabs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> between the instr mnemonic and the first operand and add a single space?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (I'm unsure about this because i dont know if CHECK eats spaces). Also for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the future, the llvm coding standards says to config your editor to replace
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tabs with spaces, so it's a good moment time to do it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5) Oh and the most important one, please add this in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only one file, add.ll or something like that, so we can keep this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> convention in the future, otherwise we'll end having too many test files.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Something that should be covered is, when doing 16 bit
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> additions we can use adiw or add depending on the imm value, can you cover
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this aswell?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2012/5/1 John Myers <ato...@gm...>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 10:46 AM, Nicklas Bo Jensen <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nbj...@gm...> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have successfully been able to compile your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> testcases (/avr-llvm/testcases/*.ll) to something looking like valid avr
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assembler.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How should I test/simulate the assembler? I get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> errors when trying to simulate the generated assembler in AVRStudio.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps they use a different assembler?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> avr-llvm produces GNU assembler syntax, which is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different then the Atmel assembler syntax.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Eventually we could support multiple asm syntax's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like the X86 target does.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
|
